This question has really revealed the true views and personalities of many of my family members that I never knew of. The big question here is “would you steal?”, and I think many will say no they won’t but when a variable is introduced which in this case is “never getting caught or prosecuted”, then all eyebrows raise and many begin to consider doing it or simply do it. Before we get into detail about whether or not to do it or not, we must first understand the true meaning of stealing and understand if it’s good or bad even when it favors us. As a religious person, I will take accounts from the Bible.
The reference to the Bible above is of an absolutist kind. It doesn't suggest you shouldn't steal for as long as you have enough money at your fingertips, or you shouldn't steal if your neighbor has been good to you. Actually, it just means you shouldn't be cheating at full stop. When you know, for example, when you learn someone was sent to prison for robbery, it would probably take something normal for you to question whether or not the person deserved punishment for his crime.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In this essay, I'll apply Kantian Ethics ' core normative theories to the stealing problem. Before we dive in let’s define stealing. At first, this may seem like a relatively simple task; stealing is simply taking away property from another person without their consent. Yet it's not always obvious that stealing suits the description comfortably. But if the person gave us permission. Even though you have their explicit permission, it might still seem like an act of theft to act on this verbal order and steal their property.
We can use two Kantian Categorical Imperative formulae to determine whether or not an act is (acceptable) morally permissible. When we find the principle behind an action (the basic idea that supports the action in the mind of the person acting) according to the first theorem, then we should determine whether or not the maxim should be a universal law. And I think in this case we all can agree that it shouldn’t be a universal law. But when there’s a twist that we will never get caught, does that make it ok to steal? Well in this scenario we are dealing with the business world and in a place of business, stealing is ethically and morally wrong, whether you get caught or not.
We should consider, according to the second term, whether or not the act involves treating another person unkindly, or as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Where or who are we stealing the money, and will it badly affect the person or company, if it does then stealing in the case fails against the first formula of Kant's Categorical Imperative, and against the second formulation. If you steal from a person or a company to your own benefit then you simply do not handle the person or company with their own integrity as a free and reasonable agent; on the contrary, you use them merely as a means for your own intent of obtaining the property you want.
In summary, stealing as explained above is wrong and against the law. So, if we are law-abiding citizens, then we should consider stealing even when it favors us to be wrong. Should we apply the same concept to killing then it turns the table but why many will agree that killing is a crime but so is stealing? Not getting caught or prosecuted seems nice but are we willing to apply the same to all crimes? The general population would suggest no. So, I think we now know the answer to the question.
Stuck on your essay?
